L4W Discussion Thread V

Walking Dad · Oct 6, 2010

evilbob said:
Essentials feats:

...
What do others think?

No, judge but I would just like to give everyone the option to take a good feat. And I like them for their secondary effects, not the 'mandatory' to-hit bonus. I actually think my idea would be the most elegant, not giving to high hit bonus for level 1-4, and still allow a choice for players.

Otakkun said:
You can add melee training (for defenders) to the same category. Really, it's quite ridiculous.

On that particular point, the errata on melee training due to essentials is going to hurt pretty badly most defenders (except the fighter). Are we going to adopt it?

Since we mostly play here at low levels, I'd say we just give an expertise feat for free at level 1 and get over it.

Why not adopt? It is kind of necessary if you use the Slayer build.

And what other defenders beside the Battlemind? Fighter, Wardens and Str Paladins don't care. Cha Paladins can choose the at-will that counts as a melee basic attack and Swordmage have Intelligent Blademaster.

If anything, I would add a Intelligent Blademaszer-like feat for Battleminds.

Otakkun · Oct 6, 2010

I had all but forgotten about the paladin at-will. Hmm, yeah, BMs could use something akin to Intelligent Blademaster. Hope they give him one, soon.

hafrogman · Oct 6, 2010

Walking Dad said:
If anything, I would add a Intelligent Blademaster-like feat for Battleminds.

Even that's not very necessary as their marking mechanic doesn't revolve around basic attacks, and they even have AO at-will attacks if they're worried about that.

renau1g · Oct 6, 2010

evilbob said:
Essentials feats:

I have to say, it seems like expertise feats (and thus, the feat tax) are here to stay. The fact that they are introducing new expertise feats that are even better than the previous must-have-regardless-of-build feats is really painful.

I'm not really sure what the best solution is. I'm thinking we may just want to dissolve our house rule and letting everyone take the stupid things at level 1 like they're supposed to. Either that, or give them for free at level 1. I mean, 100% of all characters should take one of these feats, preferably at level 1. They are so much better than any other feat, you're really handicapping yourself if you don't. Whatever the math arguments may have been in the past, everyone is clearly supposed to take one of these feats at level 1, and the benefits kick in at level 1.

What do others think?

Personally, the reason for giving them for free is that we didn't want every PC to have taken them at level 1. I hate them with a passion, which is why I much prefer the LEB method of +1 to hit at 5/15/25. The reason 5th was chosen is that IIRC the math issues with monster defenses was kicked in at that level.

Otakkun said:
You can add melee training (for defenders) to the same category. Really, it's quite ridiculous.

On that particular point, the errata on melee training due to essentials is going to hurt pretty badly most defenders (except the fighter). Are we going to adopt it?

Since we mostly play here at low levels, I'd say we just give an expertise feat for free at level 1 and get over it.

All errata is accepted as per our Charter, even ones we don't like.

The only affected classes are Battleminds and melee rogues, but really it's like a -2 damage for most PC's as their chosen stat is likely an 18.

Walking Dad · Oct 6, 2010

I like the L4W method more. It is a bit like the old days, when you had to specialize in a specific weapon to be really good... and for the plain bonus, isn't there a weaponmaster expertise, too.

The +1 takes as much away customization as anyone taking Expertise at first level. I want the new expertise for fluff and nice 'rider' abilities.

renau1g · Oct 6, 2010

I smell a proposal then....

Otakkun · Oct 6, 2010

hafrogman said:
Even that's not very necessary as their marking mechanic doesn't revolve around basic attacks, and they even have AO at-will attacks if they're worried about that.

It just hurts their "stickyness". After all, if you can't hit me, why shoudln't I move away from you and attack that tasty controller with crappy AC over there?

renau1g · Oct 6, 2010

Especially because BM's are incred-tough, just ask Ghorgor...

evilbob · Oct 6, 2010

Walking Dad said:
I actually think my idea would be the most elegant, not giving to high hit bonus for level 1-4, and still allow a choice for players.

I'm actually not a fan of that idea. You're effectively trading a +1 to hit for levels 1-4 for a free feat slot at level 5. For one thing, that's unnecessarily complex compared to: just use the rules as they are. For two, that still doesn't solve the idea that everyone will take these feats at level 1 - except the feats will be pretty crappy since there's no +1 to attacks (isn't there another feat already that gives no OAs to wizard attacks?).

r1: I sympathize, I really do. I hate "required" feats, too. But that's apparently how this is supposed to work. WotC has not only NOT backed away from expertise feats, they made them even MORE required. Maybe a different proposal could be "one less feat total and a free expertise feat at level 1"?

(Joking.)

I still don't know what the best solution is, but I'm kind of leaning toward just leave it alone and let everyone take the stupid things at level 1 and be done with it. Fewer house rules = better, right? (Generally speaking, anyway...)